Re: Bug#1043240: transition: pandas 1.5 -> 2.1

On 12/11/23 08:12, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 10.12.23 14:06, Rebecca N. Palmer wrote:
>> I'd like to move forward with the pandas 1.5 -> 2.1 transition 
>> reasonably soon.
>>
>> Given that pandas 2.x is *not* required for Python 3.12 (but is 
>> required for Cython 3.0), should we wait for the Python 3.12 
>> transition to be done first?
>>
>> These are broken by pandas 2.x and have a possible (but untested) fix 
>> in their bug - please test and apply it:
>> dask(?) dials influxdb-python* python-altair python-feather-format 
>> python-upsetplot seaborn tqdm*
>> (* = this package is currently also broken for a non-pandas reason, 
>> probably Python 3.12, that I don't have a fix for)
>>
>> These are broken by pandas 2.x and have no known-to-me fix:
>> augur cnvkit dyda emperor esda mirtop pymatgen pyranges python-anndata 
>> python-biom-format python-cooler python-nanoget python-skbio 
>> python-ulmo q2-quality-control q2-demux q2-taxa q2-types q2templates 
>> sklearn-pandas
>> Some generic things to try are pandas.util.testing -> pandas.testing, 
>> .iteritems() -> .items(), and if one exists, a more recent upstream 
>> version.
>>
>> Is this an acceptable amount of breakage or should we continue to 
>> wait? Bear in mind that if we wait too long, we may be forced into it 
>> by some transition further up the stack (e.g. a future Python or 
>> numpy) that breaks pandas 1.x.
> 
> up to the maintainers. But please wait at least until the current pandas 
> and numpy migrated to testing, e.g. that the autopkg tests of pandas and 
> numpy triggered by python3-defaults pass.
> 
> Is there a way to see the binNMUs which are still stuck in unstable, and 
> don't migrate?
> 
> Matthias

As a reminder: it's best practice to first upload the new release to 
Experimental, so we can see what happens with autopkgtest before 
destroying everything at once...

Cheers,

Thomas Goirand (zigo)